Impending Sequester Cuts in North and South Carolina

(c) freedigitalphotos.net

On February 24th, 2013 the White House released a state-by-state report of $85 billion in automatic, across-the-board cuts to the federal budget that would go into effect on March 1st and run through the end of September if Congress and President Barack Obama can’t reach a deal to reduce spending by the end of this week. President Obama is hoping that this list will put pressure on Congress to come up with an agreement that will further his goal to reduce the budget by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

President Obama has blamed the impending cuts on the intransigence of the Republicans and their unwillingness to raise taxes on the wealthy. GOP leaders in turn noted that the sequester was originally proposed by the White House. 

For North Carolina, new cuts would be particularly painful; economic recovery has been among the slowest in the nation, with official unemployment at 9.2% and official poverty at 17.5%.

S.C. Treasurer Curtis Loftis said Monday that South Carolina might be among the three to five states hit the hardest if one factors in both military and social spending in the state.

According to The White House, the Sequester would cause cuts to education ($41.8 million) and an array of public services in NC. The military sector, of huge importance in the state, would lose $140 million and 22,000 of its employees would be furloughed.

Here are some key points from The White House memo on sequester cuts in North and South Carolina:

North Carolina:

Education

• NC will lose more than $25 million in funding for primary and secondary education. The state will also lose $16.8 million for educating disabled children.

 Environment

• NC will lose $5 million in funding for environmental protection, including air, water and wildlife programs.

Defense

• 22,000 Department of Defense employees will be furloughed.

• Army operations will be cut by $136 million, Air Force operations by $5 million.

Public Safety

• About $401,000 will be cut in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Unemployment

• Job Search Assistance will lose about $83,000 in funding.

Public Health

• Nutrition assistance for the elderly will be cut by $1.5 million.

• Funding for vaccinations will be cut by about $243,000.

• N.C.’s funding for public health threat response will be cut by $911,000.

• $1,980,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse will be cut.

South Carolina:

Education

• SC will lose $12.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education. The state would also lose $8.6 million for educating disabled children.

Environment

• SC will lose more than $2 million in funding for environmental protection, including air, water and wildlife programs.

Defense

• 11,000 civilian Department of Defense employees will be furloughed.

• Army base operation funding will be cut by $62 million.

• Air Force operations in South Carolina will be cut by $5 million.

Public Safety

• About $278,000 will be cut in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Unemployment

• Job Search Assistance will lose about $550,000 in funding.

Public Health

• Nutrition assistance for the elderly will be cut by $791,000.

• Funding for vaccinations will be cut by about $127,000.

• N.C.’s funding for public health threat response will be cut by $442,000.

• $1 million in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse will be cut.

Click here for the White House memo on sequester cuts in North Carolina.

Click here for the White House Memo on sequester cuts in South Carolina.

Author: Heidi Lind, International Group Coordinator, Charlotte

Gelockerte Zuwanderung nach Deutschland für ausländische Fachkräfte

(c) freedigitalphotos.net

Die Beschäftigungsverordnung von Bundesarbeitsministerin Ursula von der Leyen hinsichtlich einer Einwanderung ausländischer Fachkräfte ohne Hochschulabschluss wurde am Mittwoch vom Kabinett beschlossen. Die neue Verordnung betrifft gezielt Fachkräfte aus Staaten außerhalb der Europäischen Union und ist dazu gedacht, den Engpass in gewissen Ausbildungsberufen anzugehen. Bewerber aus den Drittstaaten sollen in Deutschland arbeiten dürfen, wenn sie die geeignete Berufsausbildung für einen bestimmten Bereich vorweisen.

In Kraft treten soll die Neuregelung zum 1. Juli diesen Jahres, sofern die rot-grüne Mehrheit im Bundesrat zustimmt.

Für die meistgesuchten akademischen Berufe wurden seit August 2012 mit Einführung der EU-Blue-Card großzügige gesetzliche Regelungen für eine Aufenthalts- und Arbeitserlaubnis in Deutschland getroffen. Akademiker mit einem Mindestgehalt von 46.000 Euro pro Jahr dürfen einreisen. Facharbeiter in Mangelberufen dürfen bereits bei einem Jahresgehalt ab 36.000 Euro einreisen. Zu den Mangelberufen zählen im Gesundheitsbereich etwa Kranken- und Altenpfleger und im technischen Bereich Klempner, Facharbeiter in der Energietechnik usw. Außerdem können Arbeitssuchende nun mit einem sechsmonatigen Visum in Deutschland nach Arbeit suchen.

Nach wie vor ist die Kenntnis der deutschen Sprache die größte Barriere für die Arbeitsmigration. Gute Deutschkenntnisse gelten in den vielen Unternehmen als wichtigstes Einstellungskriterium. Die Bundesregierung hat hierzu ein Sonderprogramm in Höhe von 140 Millionen Euro zur Förderung der Mobilität von jungen Fachkräften in der EU auf den Weg gebracht. Dieses Sonderprogramm finanziert vor allem Sprachkurse im Heimatland, Zuschüsse für Reisekosten zu Vorstellungsgesprächen oder Praktika bei deutschen Arbeitgebern.

Gesteuert werden soll der Zugang der Fachkräfte durch die Liste mit Fachkräfteengpässen (klicken Sie hier, um dieses Dokument anzuzeigen), aber auch durch bilaterale Vermittlungsabsprachen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit mit den Herkunftsländern.

Author: Heidi Lind, International Group Coordinator, Charlotte

Obama praises German Vocational Education System

US President Barack Obama suggested orienting American public education reform towards the German vocational education system during his State of the Union address on February 12th. Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses have been marked by important comments regarding education.

“Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges. So those German kids, they're ready for a job when they graduate high school”, Obama praised.

What sets the German education system apart? The answer, as Obama alluded to, is a partnership between the public and private sectors.

A special branch of the German educational system is called "dual system" of vocational training (apprenticeship) in a company or business plus vocational school. In Germany, nearly 60% of high school graduates go on to vocational school, where students spend 3-4 days per week at work with a company, and 2-3 days in class, learning the same skills they need for a profession. During this 2-3 year “contract”, students get paid by their employers, and schooling isn’t free, either.

But would a German-style vocational program work in the US?

Siemens U.S., Mercedes-Benz U.S. and Volkswagen U.S., daughters of the German parent companies, decided to take matters into their own hands and set up an internal apprenticeship program.*

Siemens, the industrial conglomerate, recently began a dual system apprenticeship scheme at its gas and steam turbine plant in Charlotte, North Carolina. But first it had some explaining to do. “If you went in front of a high-school class and said: ‘Who wants to be a machinist when they grow up?’, those kids would look at you and say: ‘What’s a machinist?’ ” explains Pamela Howze, training manager at the plant. “We’re trying to change a mindset of kids who have thought their whole life that they were going to go away to college and get a four-year degree.”*

The focus has always been on high-tech processes, efficiency and quality output. That requires skilled people. It remains exciting to observe the changes in particular if more and more companies will create their own apprenticeship programs.

Author: Andreas Weitzell, legal trainee Charlotte Office

*source: dpa, ft.com/management

Neues Steuerabkommen zwischen den USA und Deutschland im Zusammenhang mit FATCA

(c) photo: freedigitalphotos.net

Unter Bezugnahme auf unseren Kurzartikel zum „Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)“ vom 4. Mai 2012 wird im Folgenden über die voranschreitende bilaterale Umsetzung eines neuen Steuerabkommens zwischen Deutschland und den USA informiert.

Am 21.02.2013 haben Deutschland und die USA ein Abkommen zur Förderung der Ehrlichkeit bei grenzüberschreitenden Sachverhalten paraphiert. Das Abkommen dient vornehmlich einem verbesserten steuerlichen Informationsaustausch zwischen den Steuerbehörden beider Länder.

Durch die Paraphierung erfolgt lediglich eine vorläufige Festlegung des ausgehandelten Vertragstextes. Diese völkerrechtliche Vereinbarung ist damit nicht schon mit der Paraphierung gültig, sondern erst, wenn sie ratifiziert ist. Die Paraphierung ist somit nur der erste Schritt zur Umsetzung eines gültigen völkerrechtlichen Vertrages.

Die Vereinbarung steht im Zusammenhang mit dem als FACTA bekannten Gesetz der Vereinigten Staaten und wird nach Aussage des Bundesfinanzministeriums im wesentlichen folgenden Inhalt haben:

Deutschland verpflichtet sich, von den in Deutschland ansässigen Finanzinstituten Informationen über für US-Kunden geführte Konten zu erheben und der US-Behörde zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Die USA verpflichten sich im Gegenzug, den deutschen Steuerbehörden Informationen über Zins- und Dividendeneinkünfte zur Verfügung zu stellen, die die US-Steuerbehörde von US-Finanzinstituten erhebt.

Die USA verpflichten sich zudem, alle in Deutschland ansässigen Finanzinstitute von der Pflicht auszunehmen, mit der US-Steuerbehörde Vereinbarungen abschließen zu müssen, um in den USA Quellensteuereinbehalte unter FATCA zu vermeiden.

Beide Länder streben eine baldige Ratifizierung des Gesetzestextes an.

Autor: Dr. Maximilian Oehlschlägel

US Discovery & Depositions in Germany

Discovery

(c) freedigitalphotos.net

Discovery is the pre-trial phase in a (US) lawsuit in which each party can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. The discovery is one feature of the American procedure law which is very different than the civil procedure in civil law countries. In civil law countries, the parties are obligated to produce only those documents to which they refer in their complaints. If the other party wishes to obtain access to other documents, which the party has to specify, the party must ask the court to order the other party to disclose these specific documents. Therefore, discovery faces some obstacles when it comes to an international context. The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters from March 1970 is a treaty which tries to solve the problems caused by different procedure laws.

The USA and Germany are both parties to the Hague Convention. However, this does not solve all procedure difficulties. Under Article 23 of the Convention countries limit the scope of their treaty responsibility and to avoid responses to certain requests from abroad:

“A Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries.”

Germany has made such reservation. Pursuant to § 14 of the German Act on the Execution of the Hague Evidence Convention (Ausführungsgesetz,"German Execution Act"), a regulation may be issued to allow for the execution of requests for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents unless fundamental principles of German procedural law are not opposed thereto. As of today, Germany has not issued a respective regulation yet.

There is a vivid discussion whether the German reservation requires that any request for pre-trial discovery of documents has to be rejected or documents can be obtained if the request is narrowly defined and limited to the production of specific documents. It seems to be the goal of the reservation to prevent fishing expeditions. Therefore, it is suggested that German authorities execute requests for the production of specifically defined documents.

Even if one allowed the execution of requests for the production of precisely specified documents it has to be expected that U.S. courts still would consider the procedure under the Hague Evidence Convention as insufficient, too complicated and tardy (First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse). In this case the the Court stresses that the process under the Hague Evidence Convention is insufficient because it required a specification of the requested documents. In conclusion the practice of the Hague Evidence Convention is not considered as an efficient means of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents. U.S. courts respond by avoiding the Hague Evidence Convention because it is perceived as inflexible and ineffective. The practice of the German Ministry of Justice and the U.S. Consulate General is likewise rather formal and bureaucratic.

Depositions

The Hague Evidence Convention does not set forth any details to be followed when executing the most common type of pre-trial witness testimony in U.S. litigation, the taking of depositions. The Hague Evidence Convention provides for the taking of evidence by diplomatic officers, consular agents and commissioners. Germany, however, has made a general reservation: the taking of evidence through diplomatic officers or consular agents is not admissible if it relates to German nationals. It is possible to make an exception to this reservation through bilateral agreement with a contracting state. This is the case between Germany and the U.S.

Germany and the U.S. exchanged diplomatic notes which laid the foundation for "the questioning of German or other non-American citizens" by specifying the requirements under which the questioning is admissible. Most importantly, no pressure may be imposed on the person to be questioned to make her appear or provide information. This includes that the request to provide information is not called a "summons" and that no coercive measures are threatened in the event that a person does not appear or refuses to provide information. Furthermore, the person to be questioned has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer.

During the past years, Germany and the U.S. developed the practice to allow for depositions on German territory with regard to German nationals if the German Ministry of Justice is informed and approves the deposition in advance. Furthermore, it is required that the U.S. Mission to Germany is involved or that the deposition will be held at the premises of U.S. Consulate General and that the oath is administered by a U.S. Consul.

Due to the involvement of the German Ministry of Justice as well as the U.S. Consulate General parties are well-advised to plan depositions in Germany ahead as the space at the Consulate General is limited and an early scheduling is advisable. The rather formal set-up frequently tempts parties to organize depositions on German territory without involvement of either the German or U.S. Authorities. The parties and lawyers involved, however, may risk criminal prosecution as the questioning of witnesses may constitute an unlawful assumption of public authority (Section 132 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). It is argued that the questioning of witnesses is reserved to the police, prosecutors and courts so that depositions by lawyers violate the German sovereignty.

For additional information please visit: http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/judicial-assistance/

Author: Melanie Schmitz, Legal Trainee, Charlotte Office

The Impact of the American and US Airways Merger on Charlotte Douglas International Airport

(c) freedigitalphotos.net

On February 14, 2013, the bankrupt airline American Airways and US Airways announced their $ 11 billion merger. At this point it still needs to be approved by a bankruptcy judge in New York and the US Airways shareholders. Additionally, it has to be reviewed by the Justice Departement's antitrust division. However, the experts involved in the merger are fairly certain that the merger will pass these steps.

Doug Parker, current CEO of US Airways, will become CEO of the new airline. Thomas W. Horton, chairman and chief executive of the AMR Corporation, American Airline's parent, will be chairman of the combined company for approximately one year before leaving the merged airline.

The full merger is estimated to be completed no sooner than the third quarter of 2013. Frequent fliers will therefore have enough time to cash in their miles, should they so choose, even though both airlines announced that existing miles will continue to be honored.

Should the merger go through, the new airline will be the largest in the world, offering 6,700 flights per day to 336 destinations in 56 countries.

The new airline is expected to keep all existing hubs which will turn Charlotte Douglas International Airport into its second-busiest carrier in terms of takeoffs and landings, with about 650 flights per day. In terms of passenger embarkation, Charlotte would be the third largest hub.

According to the rating agency Moody's, the three major hubs for the airlines, among them Charlotte Douglas International Airport – could suffer from the merger operation. Moody's states: “The key risks for those airports are that the combined carrier may reduce service on overlapping routes or reduce service to markets connected by these hubs. Such capacity reductions give airlines a greater ability to raise fares, which in turn can result in lower passenger volumes.”

Additionally, Moody's points out that a cut in service would automatically lead to a declining number of passengers. This would have a negative impact on Charlotte Douglas International Airport as it relies on connecting passengers for more than 75 percent of its traffic.

At present, however, the two airlines have only 12 routes overlapping. Therefore, it is unlikely that the new airline would cut a great number of routes. Additionally, the merged airline will have the advantage of a bigger network to attract business travelers and corporate accounts. History has generally proven, that mergers have created healthier airlines increasing their ability to invest in new planes and products.

Author: Cornelia Heim, Legal Trainee, Charlotte

When can Workers be Fired for Posts and Tweets on Social Media?

(c) freedigitalphotos.net

A young woman was having a bad day when she posted on Facebook, around the first anniversary of her mother's death, that some days she wished she were fired so she could just stay at home. The next day she got her wish: her employer fired her.1

A waitress posted a bill that her coworker picked up after serving a large party at the restaurant. The restaurant had automatically added a gratuity of 18 percent. Instead of leaving the tip, the customer wrote a message for the waiter on the check: "I give God 10 percent, why should you get 18?" Thinking it was funny, the worker posted a picture of the bill. However, the customer's signature on the bill was clearly legible. After he found out and complained to the restaurant's manager about the post, the employer fired the worker for infringing upon customer privacy.2

These are just two examples of posts that resulted in people getting fired. Each case raises the question: Was firing them excessive or justified?

Facebook's mission is to make the world a "more open and connected" place. Social networks are exploding in popularity, with almost half of all Americans twelve or older maintaining a profile on at least one site, according to a recent Edison Research study. And as more people visit the sites, more are crossing boundaries their employers don't want crossed.

Unfortunately, the site's users can sometimes be a bit too open, posting pictures, opinions, videos, and 'jokes' via the social networking site that give employers pause and employees the boot. One potential pitfall for companies is worker criticism of employers on social media posts. Workers who gripe about their boss or colleagues on Facebook may again be at risk of getting fired.

The City of Charlotte's recently adopted policy warns employees to "exercise sound judgment and discretion" on their personal sites "to ensure a distinct separation between personal and organizational views."

Inappropriate use, the policy notes, "may be grounds for disciplinary action."

"Such social networking references are becoming more and more important and helpful both for employers and employees" , says Reinhard von Hennigs, Managing Partner of BridgehouseLaw Charlotte and a North Carolina attorney who counsels employers on handling workers and social networks.

Author: Andreas Weitzell, Trainee Charlotte Office

1http://www.ABAJournal.com
2http://www.daily49er.com

Enforcement of International Judgments

(c) freedigitalphotos.net

Paper is patient - as the saying goes: many parties make a choice of forum in advanced of any dispute. The issues of choice of forum and enforcement of judgments are intertwined because in evaluating a choice of forum, a party and its lawyers must consider whether a judgment of the chosen forum will be enforceable in the jurisdiction in which the defendant has assets.

The US and Germany are parties of two treaties. The first treaty is the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (“New York Convention”). With limited exceptions it requires member countries to give effect to arbitration agreements and to enforce awards rendered in other countries by arbitration panels. In addition, arbitration offers other advantages: the parties can choose the arbitrators, tailor the procedures to their needs, and provide for confidentiality of the proceeding. The disadvantages are clearly the high costs, lack of reported decisions, and limited possibility of appeal. Even if a contract does not provide for arbitration, the parties may, after a dispute arises, agree to have the dispute resolved by arbitration. Different organizations can provide lawyers with model clauses. However, the lawyer has to consider modifications, deletions, and additions to such clauses.

The second treaty is the Hague Convention of June 30, 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. The Convention applies to the choice of court agreements in civil or commercial matters. The Convention has three principal points:

Chosen court must hear the case if the agreement complies with the Convention. The seized court must dismiss any proceeding brought before the court unless one of the exceptions to the Convention applies.

Any judgment rendered by the chosen court must be recognized and enforced in other contracting states unless one of the exceptions established by the Convention applies.

International matters are a growing part of practicing law. Therefore, a lawyer needs general personal knowledge. An American lawyer can not rely on the knowledge of a foreign lawyer. Only if a lawyer has such general personal knowledge he is able to spot issues and give timely advice to clients.

Author: Melanie Schmitz, Legal Trainee Charlotte Office

Doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft wird Wahlkampfthema

(c) photo: freedigitalphotos.net

Ein in Deutschland geborenes Kind, bei dem beide Elternteile Ausländer sind, erwirbt nach bisheriger Rechtslage neben der Staatsangehörigkeit der Eltern auch die deutsche, wenn sich mindestens ein Elternteil seit acht Jahren oder länger rechtmäßig in Deutschland aufhält und das Aufenthaltsrecht unbefristet ist.

Allerdings muss sich dieses Kind spätestens mit Vollendung des 23. Lebensjahres für eine der beiden Staatsangehörigkeiten entscheiden (sog. “Optionspflicht”). Anderenfalls geht die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit kraft Gesetzes verloren.

Die SPD strebt seit längerem die Abschaffung dieser Optionspflicht an und hat kürzlich erklärt, dies im Falle eines Wahlsieges durchzusetzen. Die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft der Betroffenen würde dann dauerhaft aufrechterhalten.

In Reaktion auf diesen erneuten Vorstoß der SPD spricht sich die CDU nachdrücklich für die Beibehaltung der Optionspflicht aus. Anderenfalls käme es zu zusätzlichen Problemen bei der Auslieferung von Straftätern und bei Abschiebungen, da diese Maßnahmen gegenüber deutschen Staatsangehörigen nicht zulässig seien. Der Obmann der CDU/CSU im Innenausschuss des Bundestags, Reinhard Grindel, weist zudem darauf hin, dass im Bereich der organisierten Kriminalität bereits gegenwärtig eine gehäufte Anzahl von Scheinehen zu beobachten sei, die eingegangen würden, um die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit zu erlangen.

Die SPD lässt diese Argumentation nicht gelten. Etwaigen Schwierigkeiten bei der Strafverfolgung könne durch bilaterale Auslieferungsabkommen begegnet werden. Aus Gründen der Gleichbehandlung sei die geltende Rechtslage nicht hinnehmbar, wonach nur solche Kinder dauerhaft die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft behalten, bei deren Geburt nur ein Elternteil Ausländer und der andere Deutscher gewesen ist. Hinzu komme, dass die Verpflichtung, sich für eine Staatsangehörigkeit zu entscheiden, bei vielen Bürgern innere Konflikte auslöse.

Quelle: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/-streitthema-der-bundestagswahl-spd-und-union-machen-doppelte-staatsbuergerschaft-zum-wahlkampfthema/7733944.html

Author: Cornelia Heim / Rechtsreferendarin Charlotte Office

Xtreme Eating Awards 2013 – Darf es noch ein bißchen mehr sein?

(c) photo: freedigitalphotos.net

Dass viele der in US-Restaurantketten angebotenen Speisen nicht zu den gesündesten gehören, ist hinreichend bekannt. Wie ungesund manche Speisen aber tatsächlich sind, deckt jedes Jahr aufs Neue eine Jury des “Center for Science in the Public Interest” auf und verleiht die “Xtreme Eating Awards”.

Im Jahr 2013 erreichen sowohl die Cheesecake Factory als auch Maggiano's Little Italy gleich zwei Platzierungen im obersten Bereich. Zum Beispiel haben die von der Cheesecake Factory angebotenen und auf den ersten Blick recht gesund klingenden Spaghetti mit knusprig gebackenen Shrimps, frischen Pilzen, Tomaten und Rucola an einer Basilikum-Knoblauch-Zitronensoße unglaubliche 3120 Kalorien. Zum Vergleich: Der durchschnittliche Tagesbedarf eines Erwachsenen beträgt 2000 Kalorien!

Doch es darf sogar noch ein bißchen mehr sein. Der Burger “Bacon Cheddar Double” der Johnny-Rockets-Restaurants, mit Pommes aus Süßkartoffeln als Beilage und einem Shake zum Nachtisch schafft es sogar auf 3500 Kalorien. Guten Appetit!

Author: Cornelia Heim / Rechtsreferendarin Charlotte Office

German company KSM to create hundreds of new jobs in North Carolina

Governor Pat McCrory and State Commerce Secretary Sharon Decker announced Friday February 1st, 2013 that German headquartered KSM Castings Inc. is opening its first US factory in west Shelby.

(c) photo: freedigitalphotos.net

KSM Castings NC Inc., a leading producer of light metal casting products for use in the automotive industries, will bring 189 full-time jobs to the area and $ 45 million in economic investment to the country during the next six years. Construction of the facility will bring an additional 200 to 500 jobs, said Cleveland County Commissioner Eddie Holbrook.

In addition he said: “It has been a goal of ours to attract an automotive company, because we are not right next door to an automotive company, other than BMW but are close enough to other areas.”

KSM CEO Frank Boshoff said the decision to invest in North Carolina “is an important step towards the company’s strategy to increase its global production footprint. Shelby met the criteria because of the infrastructure available, skilled workforce and proximity to future customers.”

KSM plans to construct an 110,000 square foot production facility in Shelby which will make fully machined transmission, engine and steering parts. The project was made possible in part by performance-based awards from the state's Job Development Investment Grant program and One North Carolina Fund. Officials said receipt of each award will be based on proof of job creation and other requirements.

The facility is scheduled to open in early 2014 at the proposed site of 641 Plato Lee Road.

Author: Andreas Weitzell, Trainee Charlotte Office

Secretary Napolitano Announces Final Rule to Support Family Unity During Waiver Process

WASHINGTON— Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today announced the posting of a final rule in the Federal Register that reduces the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives (spouse, children and parents), who are in the process of obtaining visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States under certain circumstances. The final rule establishes a process that allows certain individuals to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver before they depart the United States to attend immigrant visa interviews in their countries of origin. The process will be effective on March 4, 2013 and more information about the filing process will be made available in the coming weeks at www.uscis.gov.

“This final rule facilitates the legal immigration process and reduces the amount of time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who are in the process of obtaining an immigrant visa,” said Secretary Napolitano.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received more than 4,000 comments in response to the April 2, 2012 proposed rule and considered all of them in preparing the final rule.

“The law is designed to avoid extreme hardship to U.S. citizens, which is precisely what this rule achieves,” USCIS Director Mayorkas said. “The change will have a significant impact on American families by greatly reducing the time family members are separated from those they rely upon.”

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States to become lawful permanent residents must leave the U.S. and obtain an immigrant visa abroad. Individuals who have accrued more than six months of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver to overcome the unlawful presence inadmissibility bar before they can return to the United States after departing to obtain an immigrant visa. Under the existing waiver process, which remains available to those who do not qualify for the new process, immediate relatives cannot file a waiver application until after they have appeared for an immigrant visa interview abroad and the Department of State has determined that they are inadmissible.

In order to obtain a provisional unlawful presence waiver, the applicant must be an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, inadmissible only on account of unlawful presence, and demonstrate the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent. USCIS will publish a new form, Form I-601A, Application for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, for individuals to use when applying for a provisional unlawful presence waiver under the new process.

Under the new provisional waiver process, immediate relatives must still depart the United States for the consular immigrant visa process; however, they can apply for a provisional waiver before they depart for their immigrant visa interview abroad. Individuals who file the Form I-601A must notify the Department of State’s National Visa Center that they are or will be seeking a provisional waiver from USCIS. The new process will reduce the amount of time U.S. citizen are separated from their qualifying immediate relatives. Details on the process changes are available at www.regulations.gov.

Quelle: USCIS website